1/18, 7:26p: Well, Lawdy, Speaker Boehner’s office has picked up on the Emanuel admission in a fact check:

Dem Claim: ObamaCare does not promote taxpayer funding of abortion, and legislation is not needed to keep abortions from being funded by taxpayer dollars under ObamaCare.

FACT: In a recent interview with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, facing questions about his commitment to the pro-abortion cause, former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel emphasized that the Executive Order on abortion signed by President Obama in March 2010 – ostensibly to eliminate the need for the pro-life Stupak Amendment to be attached to ObamaCare – does not carry the force of law, and as such, has the seal of approval of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others who oppose a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion (Chicago Tribune, 1/14/11). Emanuel also seemed to acknowledge that the EO was a maneuver by the Obama Administration to circumvent a bipartisan majority in the House – and the will of the American people – which supported the pro-life Stupak amendment.

In my opinion Stupak was not so much hoodwinked as looking for a rationale he thought would pass public muster and provide him with a façade to enable him to support Obamacare. Unfortunately for Stupak, the public found Stupak’s words deceptive. Unfortunately for America and her unborn citizens, they found Stupak’s principles deceptive.

1/17, 1:19p: On January 14 the Chicago Tribune editorial board met with the Chicago mayoral candidates, including Barack Obama’s former chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel.

During that meeting the topic of Obamacare came up and along with it a discussion of the Stupak Amendment.

Emanuel made two interesting statements.

The first contradicted former Congressman Bart Stupak’s contention that Nancy Pelosi had the votes to pass Obamacare in the House without Stupak’s Democrat pro-life bloc, which Stupak said forced him to agree to President Obama’s executive order rather than walk away from the table with nothing.

In actuality, according to Emanuel, pro-lifers had the the other side’s one-seeded fruits in a vice.

Emanuel’s other statement appeared to corroborate the pro-life community’s contention that Obama’s EO does not carry the force of law. The relevant portion comes during the first 2:15 of this clip:

Transcript of relevant points:

Carol Moseley Braun: …Stupak-Pitts took from women in the new health plan the right to choose, or at least to have it covered…. You wound up being the person tagged with making that, quote, compromise happen….

Rahm Emanuel: …That is a fair question, and I’ll explain it. President Obama was determined to get his healthcare bill passed. There were 14 votes that were holding up, and my job as chief-of-staff was to help the president get – after a hundred years of waiting for comprehensive reform of healthcare – to help him get that legislation.

Carol Moseley-Braun: And so you threw women under the bus?

Rahm Emanuel:And it was hanging in balance by 14 votes. I came up with an idea for an executive order to allow the Stupak Amendment not to exist by law but by executive order, and it was good enough that Nancy Pelosi, Jan Schakowsky – here in Chicago, Rosa DeLauro, Anna Eshoo – a number of women who are held – Nita Lowey – who are held up as honors by people like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who supported that bill and supported the way to make progress.

Emanuel twice stated his side didn’t have the votes, with his count of 14 in the Stupak bloc coming thisclose to a pro-life count of as many as 15. After his cave, Stupak claimed he didn’t have the numbers. According to The DC Caller on March 23, 2010:

Stupak said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had enough votes to pass the health bill without him and the bloc of six or seven votes he brought with him, and that she released some vulnerable Democrats from voting for the bill after he agreed to support it.

By then I had realized that health-care reform would pass, so rather than vote no and lose my power to add pro-life protections, I gathered my coalition to try to reach an agreement with President Obama: an executive order confirming that no federal money would support abortion. On that Sunday, seven or eight of us pro-lifers sat with silver urns of coffee, yellow legal pads, and red pens in a discreet room away from the White House, hammering out the language.

So was the actual number 6, 7, 8 – or 14? Emanuel was quite specific. Either he or Stupak is “misremembering” – or one of them was out-bluffed. My bet would be on Emanuel and Pelosi being better high stakes political poker players than Stupak. If pro-aborts really had the votes, they wouldn’t have needed the EO.

And what did Emanuel mean by, “I came up with an idea for an executive order to allow the Stupak Amendment not to exist by law but by executive order” – a deal that passed NARAL and Planned Parenthood’s muster? Don’t forget after Obamacare’s passage PP CEO Cecile Richards called the EO a “symbolic gesture.” Stupak was apparently hoodwinked here, too.

Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)

Violations will be deleted and you may be banned. Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.

Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.

Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls
to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They
reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.

Stupak will the ‘example’ to all other liberals for years to come what happens when you defy the democrat leadership.

Stupak will savaged by the left for years to come and if he should show any interest in running for any political office he will be dragged into the public square and made a spearcatcher and public whipping boy.

Stupak make himself comfortable under the bus and get more closely acquainted with the ever growing cast of characters including even Obama’s maternal grand mother who pretty much raised him.

To use one of George W. Bush’s “Bushisms”, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice… uhh… you can’t be fooled again.” But the Democratic Party leadership has done just that. How many times have we been betrayed by “pro-life Democrats” like Stupak? How many of these “pro-life Democrats” speak to us during the March for Life? I know that my US Senator, the supposedly pro-life Bobby Casey, holds a meeting in his Senate Office Building every year during the March for Life, and he just happens to time the meeting so that you have to choose between going to Casey’s meeting and actually marching in the March for Life itself. And if you go to the meeting, it’s nothing but 20 minutes of Casey reading off a list of his pro-life bona fides to you to “prove” how pro-life he is. Then he runs off right away because he’s just sooo busy. Of course you would never know he’s busy from back here in PA, because the guy is MIA most of the year. Most people in this state have probably forgotten that he is our US Senator.

I went to the link for Speaker Boehner’s website it is being innundated with Obamaites (probably encouraged by Obama’s political organization, Organizing For America) to have a hissy fit about the repeal of his pro-abort bill. I understand Organizing For America sent out a email blast pushing for calls to US representatives, letters to the editors, emails, etc. to keep this horrible baby-killing, massive takeover of 1/6th of the economy and of the healthcare of every American.

I am very sad for Stupak. Some of the rest of us have gotten in the middle of a presssure cooker situation and made the wrong decision. Ours may not have been so public, but there is truly almost no one who will always make the right decision, no matter the circumstances. We truly must pray for strength and clarity for this Congress, especially our precious newly elected prolife representatives.

0 likes

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.

The “reversals” also show that the ingestion of medication abortion drugs is never a sure thing when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. While anti-abortion activists tout the alleged “high complication rates” of the process, what they conveniently leave out is that the most common complication is that the patient remains pregnant, and that the protocol needs to be followed up with D&C or vacuum aspiration abortion in order to end the pregnancy….

Why is the “reversal” apparently so successful then? Primarily it is because those who are trying to continue the pregnancy are already in the midst of a failed medication abortion to start with….

“There’s no evidence of any demonstrable effect of the ‘treatment’ these anti-abortion centers are marketing,” Dr. Cheryl Chastine, a provider at South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas, said. “The medical literature is quite clear that mifepristone on its own is only about 50 percent effective at ending a pregnancy. That means that even if these doctors were to offer a large dose of purple Skittles, they’d appear to have ‘worked’ to ‘save’ the pregnancy about half the time. Those numbers are consistent with what these people are reporting.”

“[The abortion pill] binds much more tightly to the progesterone receptor, to block it than progesterone itself does…. So there really is not much evidence to indicate, I’m really not aware of anything, that by increasing the amount of progesterone you’re gonna somehow block the effect of this drug….

I think this is really outside of standard of care to just begin doing this kind of treatment, without collecting more rigorous studies about its effectiveness.”

Note: The function of mifepristone is to block progesterone receptors (which is why, in an abortion pill reversal, an extra injection of progesterone is given to counteract these effects). Mifepristone “directly causes endometrial decidual degeneration, cervical softening and dilatation, release of endogenous prostaglandins, and an increase in the sensitivity of the myometrium to the contractile effects of prostaglandins. Mifepristone-induced decidual breakdown indirectly leads to trophoblast detachment, resulting in decreased syncytiotrophoblast production of hCG, which in turn causes decreased production of progesterone by the corpus luteum (pregnancy is dependent on progesterone production by the corpus luteum through the first 9 weeks of gestation—until placental progesterone production has increased enough to take the place of corpus luteum progesterone production).”